With yesterday's news that Google will be dropping H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, the internet was split in half. One one side, there's people who applaud the move, who are happy that Google is pushing an open, royalty-free and unencumbered video codec (irrespective of Google's motivation). On the other side, there are the H.264 supporters, who believe that H.264 is the one and only choice for HTML5 video. One of the most vocal and public figures in the latter group is John Gruber. Following his five questions for Google, here are ten questions for Gruber about WebM, H.264, and standards on the web.

This OSnews article is a little iffy to me. Some of the questions are little pathetic. Don't flame me it's just my opinion. Hey I am all for open standards but you H.264 is a standard in the video world and to remove it from the browser is just plain dumb. To make content makers encode the same video with multiple codecs is also dumb. Think about all the waste of storage, time and bandwidth. That's what Google proposes though.

With that you completely ignored Gruber's 4th question. I will quote it here for ya:

Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM? If not, how will Chrome users watch this content other than by resorting to Flash Player’s support for H.264 playback?

Sorry but it does not seem reasonable to the content providers just because Google has a bug up its butt.

I get that these are FREE browsers but don't mistake FREE for non-profit as these free browsers are bringing in ad revenue and that is nothing to sneeze at. So free, in this sense isn't an excuse.

Free is EVERYTHING! I don't mean free as in no cost. The only way that open source browsers can support WebM is if it uses a free codec. Otherwise it will never happen. And considering most browsers in use ARE open source, isn't it really Apple and Microsoft who are being a bit inconsiderate?

And considering most browsers in use ARE open source, isn't it really Apple and Microsoft who are being a bit inconsiderate?

Nah. Don't forget that the rendering engine behind Safari is Open Source. So if Webkit supports it then so will Safari. IE is well, IE. I don't have a problem with Microsoft making their own browser either. It is FREE, even if it is closed source, so it matters not in that avenue. Is MS and Apple being inconsiderate for not having Open Source OSs? No, OS X does not count because only parts of it are. I don't think they are because they are a business trying to make money, after all.

Did I say that it was an OPEN standard? No I said it was a standard and it is. Just because a standard is closed does not mean it is incompatible with the web, THAT is nonsense.

They already are! They are offering videos in several bitrates and resolutions. They might as well do it in an open format.

No, you seem to have trouble reading. The article said encoding (codecs) not bitrates and resolutions. [/q]

And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest video content owners, through YouTube.

And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest privacy offenders too and has their hand in everything related to the web. They have too much power, IMHO.

What utter nonsense. Google is a content provider too!

Thank You. Is it nonsense to Netflix, Vimeo and the others, not to mention the MAJORITY of consumers who do not give a crap if a standard is open or closed only that one day they are going to get a message that they can't play the content because of Google playing internet lord. Consumer confusion is always good, isn't it and no big deal either huh?

Just my Opinion, and you obviously don't agree with it and thats up to you.